Robert Novak dead at 78

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Druidx

You really are dense.
1) You claimed you wrote it.
2) I showed where copied it from.
How can you get lost between point 1 and 2?

Not as easily as you get lost between point 1 and 1.

1. No, I didn't "claim I wrote" any of the quotes. They are accurate quotes. They are factual statements. I wrote the language in my various posts relating those quotes to the subject of the various threads in which I posted them.

2. Once again you prove how really thick and really stupid you are so I'll repeat what I said in my previous post and the post before that...

My list is compiled from many sources, and every one of them that quotes those statements accurately will say exactly the same thing. The only way I could be wrong would be to misquote them. None of them is plagarizing anyone else by reciting the same facts, and public statements by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that criminal gang are not protected. They are in the public domain.

You denied that you accused me of plagarism, but AGAIN, you accuse me of copying them and claiming them as my own writing. Prove it, or STFU.

You claim I copied the quotes from a specific site, americanprogress.org. The same quotations are available on many sites, and on americanprogress.org, some of the quotes I cite contain only partial quotes with the missing, elided words denoted by "..."

If I copied those quotes from americanprogress.org, how did the missing mysteriously words show up in my quotes?

You're a liar, and you're too stupid to be any good at it. Go home and practice, little boy.

 

[Druidx]

LOL
You insulted someone else saying they were to stupid to write something like your "Bush Macro". All I did was point out it was nothing but a big cut an paste job. Sadly, it's a cut an paste job you cut and paste into every topic you can.

So why don't you run along an write me another song putting "Criminal Cabal" to a catchy tune. You may as well make a song to go along with your broken record.

Are you proud to be the king of derailing topics?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Druidx

You really are dense.
1) You claimed you wrote it.
2) I showed where copied it from.
How can you get lost between point 1 and 2?

Not as easily as you get lost between point 1 and 1.

1. No, I didn't "claim I wrote" any of the quotes. They are accurate quotes. They are factual statements. I wrote the language in my various posts relating those quotes to the subject of the various threads in which I posted them.

2. Once again you prove how really thick and really stupid you are so I'll repeat what I said in my previous post and the post before that...

My list is compiled from many sources, and every one of them that quotes those statements accurately will say exactly the same thing. The only way I could be wrong would be to misquote them. None of them is plagarizing anyone else by reciting the same facts, and public statements by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that criminal gang are not protected. They are in the public domain.

You denied that you accused me of plagarism, but AGAIN, you accuse me of copying them and claiming them as my own writing. Prove it, or STFU.

You claim I copied the quotes from a specific site, americanprogress.org. The same quotations are available on many sites, and on americanprogress.org, some of the quotes I cite contain only partial quotes with the missing, elided words denoted by "..."

If I copied those quotes from americanprogress.org, how did the missing mysteriously words show up in my quotes?

You're a liar, and you're too stupid to be any good at it. Go home and practice, little boy.

You have disrailed this thread. Out of respect for someone who was one of the great reporters whether you like him or not, take your argument into a new thread please. Both of you.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to disagree with the dphantom contention of, "You have disrailed this thread. Out of respect for someone who was one of the great reporters whether you like him or not, take your argument into a new thread please. Both of you."

Now that Robert Novak has died in his own bed of natural causes, its still grist for the mill of Anand tech to access the works of Robert Novak. Great reporter or great Rat fink is and remains the legacy question of the life Robert Novak lived. And thus is part and parcel of this thread.

And even if Robert Novak is dead, there are still the Robert Novak papers to sift through, that may yet shed more light.

We already know that the same out the CIA agent story was shopped to the late Tim Russert, and while he did what great journalist do in protecting sources, but still Tim Russert would not touch outing a CIA agent with a 10 foot pole. Which says something about Russert, something else about Novak, and something else about being a proper American.

 

[Druidx]

I highly doubt anything of substance will come out after a review of Novak's papers. If there ever was anything, I'm sure it was "lost" around the time of the trials. Concerning Russert, highly recommend his book "Big Russ" to anyone who hasn't read it.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
He was a tool for the conservative movement.

Outed a CIA agent. Pompous ass. Now feeding Worms.

Richard Armitage you mean.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
He was a tool for the conservative movement.

Outed a CIA agent. Pompous ass. Now feeding Worms.

Richard Armitage you mean.

Reality check:

1. Armitage didn't publicize the information, Novak did.
2. I've yet to hear who leaked the information to Armitage and his "authorized" reason for doing so (as opposed to a campaign to smear Wilson)
3. Novak said TWO people told him about Plame. Who wast the second? Libby?

 

[ProfJohn]

1. Novak stated his reason for putting her name forth.

2. Armitage knew because it was well known around the White House and he leaked it by accident supposedly since everyone knew him to be a big talker. That is why Armitage was never charged with a crime because they could not prove that he knew he was breaking the law by releasing her name.

3. I don't know anything about 3. But Novak's account includes this bit: "when I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." "
So Armitage leaks it and Novak calls someone else and says "I hear Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA" and the other guy says "Oh, you know about it" and presto two sources and Novak can print his article.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
:snip:

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962-63. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963?1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House Press Secretary.

As you said, he was "an architect" of Johnson's campaign. Moyers' most significant work under Kennedy and Johnson, was with the Peace Corps and Johnson's "Great Society" legislation and later, as Press Secretary. However, that doesn't make him responsible for Johnson's actions as President regarding the war in Vietnam. Your attempt to link him to that was is yet another of your typical diversions, distractions and outright lies.

I don't think you are an idiot, but some times you make me wonder.

YOUR own quote references him as an architect of Johnson's campaign. Perhaps you need to study up on the term architect and learn how it is being used in this sentence.

Bill Moyer's was one of the principle designers of Johnson's re-election campaign. Moyers helped Johnson get a full term of his own. Whether Moyer's work at the peace corps or baked cookies the rest of the time he was in the White House is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Moyer's helped Johnson win in 1964 and thus helped Johnson expand the war and bring about the deaths of 37,000+ Americans in a 4 year period.

BTW it is interesting how anyone who had anything to do with Bush, even people who just voted for him, are guilty of help Bush. But Johnson's special assistant, Chief of Staff and Press Secretary is completely innocent in your eyes. Pathetic.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Novak stated his reason for putting her name forth.

2. Armitage knew because it was well known around the White House and he leaked it by accident supposedly since everyone knew him to be a big talker. That is why Armitage was never charged with a crime because they could not prove that he knew he was breaking the law by releasing her name.

3. I don't know anything about 3. But Novak's account includes this bit: "when I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." "
So Armitage leaks it and Novak calls someone else and says "I hear Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA" and the other guy says "Oh, you know about it" and presto two sources and Novak can print his article.

1. So? His excuse was irrelevant. The bottom line is he exposed not only a covert agent specializing in WMDs, but also the front company she ostensibly worked for, and therefore every other agent using that company as a cover.

2. Yes, that was the talking point. It is unproven and equally irrelevant. To whatever extent it is true, it demonstrates a dangerous disregard for classified information within the Bush administration, hardly something to extol.

3. See #2.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
1. So? His excuse was irrelevant. The bottom line is he exposed not only a covert agent specializing in WMDs, but also the front company she ostensibly worked for, and therefore every other agent using that company as a cover.

2. Yes, that was the talking point. It is unproven and equally irrelevant. To whatever extent it is true, it demonstrates a dangerous disregard for classified information within the Bush administration, hardly something to extol.

3. See #2.

Oh give me a fucking break!!!

The New York Times published classified information about the government's swift program to trace terrorist funds on its front page and you guys yawned about it like it was no big deal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
1. So? His excuse was irrelevant. The bottom line is he exposed not only a covert agent specializing in WMDs, but also the front company she ostensibly worked for, and therefore every other agent using that company as a cover.

2. Yes, that was the talking point. It is unproven and equally irrelevant. To whatever extent it is true, it demonstrates a dangerous disregard for classified information within the Bush administration, hardly something to extol.

3. See #2.

Oh give me a fucking break!!!

The New York Times published classified information about the government's swift program to trace terrorist funds on its front page and you guys yawned about it like it was no big deal.

Changing the subject I see. Big surprise. The point remains it was Novak who publicly blew Plame's cover as well as her front company and everyone else working behind it. But that's enough for this thread, I won't belabor it further.

 

[Daaavo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Druidx

Originally posted by: Daaavo
My favorite Crossfire.

I wonder if they were surprised by Zappa?

RIP Frank Zappa.

For anyone interested in Frank Zappa, check out this book. It is well worth the price.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. Novak stated his reason for putting her name forth.

His supposed "reason" was a lie, just like your bullshit, and it doesn't excuse his act of TREASON! :|

You conveniently ignore what I wrote in this thread three days ago so I'll repost it for you:

Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a man with decades of diplomatic experience in Niger, went there to track down the truth behind that statement. On his return, Ambassador Wilson published an article refuting the administration's big lie.

Robert Novak published a hit column attempting to discredit Wilson and revealing that it was involved with his wife, Valerie Plame's job with the CIA as a specialist in nuclear proliferation and who is also well known and accepted under her CIA cover.

Novak blew her cover. In doing so, he blew her usefulness to the defense interests of the United States of America and all of her years of experience and all the time, money and other resources poured into making her such an asset to the nation. He also risked blowing the covers of every person known to have associated with her in various countries.

The act of publishing the column was a direct assault on the defense interests of the United States of America.

United States Constitution, Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
.
.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We have plenty of "giving them Aid and Comfort," and we have a whole lot more than two witnesses.

Why did Novak do this? At whose behest? We know that, too. What does that make those who commissioned Novak's hit column? :Q

Robert Novak will be remembered as the Bushwhacko tool and TRAITOR who outed Valerie Plame, a valuable covert CIA asset. In so doing, he shit on any value of any earlier accomplishments in his life.

 

[eplebnista]